Mr. Speaker, next year, Canada will host an international conference on children affected by war.

This summit will bring together officials representing governments, international organizations and various groups from all parts of the world. The objective is to develop a global plan of action for all problems experienced by children who are affected by conflicts.

I should point out that, two years ago, Canada helped create a similar coalition concerning the land mines treaty. I had the honour of being part of that delegation.

Canada is now hoping to start a process to protect children, who are hard hit by conflicts around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the changes to the employment insurance system have made it much more difficult on part time and seasonal workers to qualify for benefits. These changes have made it very difficult for women, given that women have longer absences from the workforce than men. Nationally only 36% of the unemployed qualify for EI benefits. It is therefore no surprise that only 30% of unemployed Canadian women actually qualify for benefits.

The government has indicated that it will increase maternity leave from six months to a full year. Given that it is much harder to qualify for maternity benefits than regular EI benefits, that new commitment rings very hollow indeed.

The government's changes to the EI system were designed as an attack on seasonal workers in rural and Atlantic Canada, and sadly an attack on Canadian women as well.

Mr. Speaker, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has an unparalleled record across Canada for fine work in housing. Over the decades poor and not so poor Canadians have blessed CMHC for helping provide them with a home. In co-ops, seniors residences, special needs accommodation and ordinary houses in communities like Peterborough in every province, CMHC work ticks on.

The government is engaged in a transfer of authority over housing from the federal level to the provincial. I urge that this transfer not take place without the most careful preparation and care to ensure full protection of federally supported housing.

I urge that CMHC be maintained as a strong and viable federal agency so that it can continue as a national oversight authority in housing.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers have heard reports that they may be paying 80 cents per litre for gas by Christmas because of rising oil prices. Something has been overlooked in the whole equation, the fact that roughly half the cost of a litre of gas is made up of taxes.

On August 26 my Calgary caucus colleagues and I handed out Ottawa gas tax bucks to Calgary residents filling their tanks. They were surprised to find that Ottawa takes $300 million in gasoline taxes from Calgarians and nothing comes back to Calgary to help with its transportation challenges.

From municipalities across the nation Ottawa takes in $4 billion a year in fuel taxes but less than six cents on the dollar go to highway renewal. The rest goes to more big government.

Municipalities like Calgary send billions in tax dollars to Ottawa and never see them again while they are forced to raise property taxes to pay the bills for maintenance of communities where overtaxed Canadians live. Calgarians want—

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada released figures today on farm income and federal government support for agriculture. I would like to put these numbers released today into perspective so people do not misinterpret them as the reality of life on the farm.

The picture that Statistics Canada paints of Canadian farmers and government support is a far cry from what is really happening out there today. The report talks about gross payments from government support programs reaching $1.2 billion, up 54% from the previous year. This does not necessarily reflect an increase of support but more so reveals that the severity of the income crisis has triggered farmers to use most of their meagre income out of NISA.

The reality is that government support has been drastically cut since the Liberals took power in 1993. In 1993 in the last budget of the Progressive Conservative government there were $7.1 billion in federal-provincial farm support. Today there are about $3 billion less. This is an accurate reality on the farm today, not the rosy picture Statistics Canada paints.

Mr. Speaker, on November 9, Quebec's director general of elections received the Quebec award of excellence in public administration for establishing a permanent voters' list.

This award recognizes remarkable achievements in the public sector and is a tribute to those who are the architects of such achievements. Such an honour adds to the already great reputation of the Quebec electoral system, both as regards its underlying fundamental principles and its daily management.

Testimony to this is the public funding of political parties, which put an end to the not so transparent campaign funds to which corporations used to contribute heavily, and the appointment of returning officers and employees of the director general of elections based on merit, through public competitions, and not for services to the party in office.

This award confirms once again the excellence of the people responsible for Quebec's electoral system, as well as the credibility of the province's democratic institutions.

Congratulations to Quebec's director general of elections and his team.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring issue of the Rotary Club of West Ottawa, Mr. Bill Coombs wrote about the project of the children's home in Sumpango, Guatemala.

The Rotary Club of West Ottawa, with the help of the rotary clubs of West Town-Middleton, Madison, Wisconsin and Guatemala South, as well as aid from CIDA and the Canadian Rotary Committee for International Development, relocated a home for children from Guatemala City to the municipality of Sumpango.

The home is to care for children from a few months to 15 years old, whether they are suffering from malnutrition or homelessness. The home has been refurbished with a dental and health care clinic, as well as irrigated gardens to provide the fruits and vegetables the children need and, most importantly, a new well providing pure water.

I applaud the Rotary Club of West Ottawa and their partners and encourage them to keep working to help the poorest and most disadvantaged in the world.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told the finance minister about a teacher who had $81 of her $83 monthly pay raise ripped off through higher taxes.

Today I want to talk to the minister about Eddy, who just started working at the Ford plant just outside of Toronto. He writes “I'm just doing my regular hours and already my taxes are incredible. If I go and do overtime, well it's not even worth it because I'll be working for free. Someone in government gets a raise that I worked for”.

Why should the finance minister get that overtime pay when it is Eddy who is putting in the extra hours?

Mr. Speaker, why do we not take a look at what Eddy does not see on his pay stub. He does not see the $11.5 billion that has gone into health care. He does not see the $1.7 billion that we have put into the Canadian child tax benefit. He does not see the 600,000 taxpayers who have been taken off the tax rolls and who are no longer paying taxes.

Those are things that do not appear on his pay stub and those are also things that would not have occurred if the government had listened to Reform.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right, those things do not pass the pay stub test.

If the finance minister wants to dismiss Eddy, maybe he will believe Ian.

Ian lives in Vancouver and he just sent us the pay stub from his so-called incentive bonus. Of the $309 Ian was paid, 49% of it was confiscated in taxes, leaving $157 after the finance minister got his mitts on it.

Can the minister explain where the incentive is in sucking 49% out of a so-called incentive bonus?

Mr. Speaker, if the Reform Party wants to have a serious discussion, then it must be prepared to defend its own policies. Now, from fresh start and from the debate in the House, the fact is that Reform—we discussed it yesterday—was not prepared to cut EI premiums for employees, only for employers. Reform's basic position was that there would be no tax cuts until the year 2000.

We have brought in tax cuts in each of the last three years. The fact is that every one of those pay stubs would have a lot less money in them if the government had listened to Reform.

Mr. Speaker, you will notice that whenever the minister cannot defend his own policies, he attacks us.

Let us take a look at Ron's pay stub. Ron lives in Calgary. This summer he took early retirement after 25 years of working for Telus. He was owed $18,000 in unused vacation pay, but after the taxman got hold of it, he was left with only $10,000, $8,000 was ripped off by the taxman.

Is ripping off $8,000 from Ron's vacation pay this minister's idea of a retirement send-off?

Mr. Speaker, what I am clearly demonstrating is the total lack of credibility of the Reform tax position and its ability to criticize the government. What Reform put forward consistently was a deficit plan that did not work. We put forward a deficit plan that worked.

Reform then deliberately said that there should be no action taken on taxes until the year 2000 and no action taken on the reduction of EI premiums for employees. We did not listen to Reform.

The question really is: How does the Reform Party dare stand up and try to defend Canadian workers when its position has been totally hostile to what they want?

Mr. Speaker, in 1992, a Calgary firefighter took home a $1,303 paycheque. Every year since then, this finance minister has given him a pay cut by taking an awful lot of tax. Today, this man's paycheque is only $1,129; same job, but almost $200 less than before the Liberals were elected.

Why does the finance minister say he has cut taxes when the workers' paycheques prove he has actually raised taxes?

Mr. Speaker, we say that we have cut taxes because in fact we have. The threshold has been increased by $675, the 3% surtax no longer exists and Canadian families are receiving, through the national child benefit, over $2 billion a year.

We have put our plan out there. It is one that is working. It is reducing taxes.

The issue is: Why do Reformers think they can stand up in this House and play smoke and mirrors with the hopes and aspirations of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the intellectual bankruptcy of the Reform position is manifest in every question that Reformers ask.

We have laid out our tax plan. It is resulting in lower taxes for Canadians; by next year a 10% tax cut for individual Canadians, a 14% tax cut for families.

The issue is: If the Reform Party members believe what they say, why will they not stand up in the House and defend their position? Why do they not refute the claims that I have made in terms of their position? It is because I am telling the truth and the Reform Party knows it and it is afraid to defend its position.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has unveiled part of his referendum strategy.

Yesterday, he admitted that asking Quebecers whether they wanted Quebec to become a country would be a clear question for him. So separation or secession need no longer be mentioned in the question. Now, we would like to know the government's intentions with respect to what it would see as a clear majority.

Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us what he is thinking of when he says he wants to change the 50% plus one rule?

In that legislation, a referendum is defined as a consultation. I quote from the 1977 white paper that was instrumental in the drafting of this legislation “Because of the consultative nature of referendums, it would be pointless for legislation to include special provisions with respect to the majority required or the necessary voter turnout”.

A referendum is a consultation and governments evaluate, on the basis of clarity, among other criteria.

Mr. Speaker, it is not included because it goes without saying that it is 50% plus one, as it says in the supreme court ruling.

In fact a clear majority is often mentioned. It is mentioned so often that they did not say 50% plus one. It was obvious to them that that is what it was. Maybe the minister is telling us that we won the last time and do not know it.

By restricting the clarity of the process to the results alone, by failing to consider the quality of the debate and voter turnout, is the minister not adopting an attitude that is incompatible with the supreme court ruling?

Stéphane DionLiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, when the word clear is put before the word majority, it is because a simple majority is not enough.

Yesterday, during a public debate, the Bloc Quebecois constitutional critic was asked the following simple question by an ordinary citizen “If 50% plus one is a clear majority, could you give us an example of a majority that is not clear?” The best answer he could come up with was “50% and 50%”.